Not every jew is sick but they all are carriers of mental illness. In 1900 there were 1,058,135 jews in the USA while in 1970 there were 5,868,555 which is an increase of 454.8%. In 1900 there were 62,112 persons confined in public mental hospitals in the USA while in 1970 there were 339,027 which is an increase of 445.7%. In the same period the USA population rose from 76,212,368 to 203,211,926, an increase of 166.6%. Prior to the influx of jews the USA was a mentally healthy nation. No more
Debo de reirme de todas las tonterías que han escrito. Qué puedo decir, son gringos. Son dos posturas distintas, Foucault habla de un espacio social que existe, en cuanto al poder, mientras Chomsky, habla de planes de acción hacia algo que ya está ahí.
the difference is that foucault was a genius chomsky is a great philosopher but i think he is not a genius.He is as good as David Harvey for example but not as good as foucault.
Foucauly had a much richer sensibility, which gave him a wider and deeper imagination. Chomsky thinks like an engineer. Foucault had looked into the abyss.
Chomsky talks about this notion of the 'fundamental need for creative work'. But humans have many fundamental needs, and choosing that particualr one seems rather arbitrary. We have sexual urges, could that not equally be a consideration when organising society? It is essentially a value judgement on his behalf. And this is obviously based on his own personal prejeudices. Though marx had a similar view. Maybe it is the academic mind which places value on creativity more than the laymen.
well of course you have sexual urges that need to be fulfilled, but i hope you will not spend your whole life on fulfilling them, what would you do in your spare time? should the job you take be imposed on you? if you wanted to study something, and you cannot because of your financial problems, what then? how does one relate to others in society? so far, it was only money and power that rule and dictate society?
those i think are the kinds of questions that chomsky has in mind.
Woah. That video was really interesting! I think I agree with Focault more than Mr Chomsky and it's ironic that he argues for anarcho-syndicalism when America lacks any semblance of it. Am doing a video reply but would like the transcript of the debate
i wouldn't say that chomsky's endorsement of anarcho-syndicalism is ironic; chomsky is literally one of the most trenchant critics of american policy on the planet, so there's no contradiction.
way. When Foucault gets really critical of the state the camera draws back. He doesn't get anywhere near as much camera love as Chomsky. This is classic storytelling technique to tell you who the main character is and who you should listen to. Regardless of which one of these guys makes the better point, doesn't anyone else find that a bit dodge?
did anyone notice with what a bias this video is shot? It's leaning towards Chomsky in a major way. When he talks, the camera focuses on his face, does subtle little zooms in like he's saying something meaningful, and switches between him and the audience as if to say "Look. The people are listening." When Foucault is filmed there is often something in the
In comparison, Chomsky thinks that if we are technologically advanced enough, human nature is such that they can with their own hands, destroy all forms of power reproduction and create an "anarcho-syndicalismic reality." I don't think that that is possible.. at least in my opinion.
Apparently, personal liking is not the same thing as academic correctness. Foucault and Chomsky, as you can see in this video, does not disagree that "anarcho-syndicalism" is the most ideal social structure.
Foucault, is far too absolutist for my liking. His thoughts on psychiatry and justice systems, etc... are extremely black n' white. Chomsky noted that those very institutions DO contain elements of repression, but not entirely. Life in general is much more complex than Foucault makes it out to be. It's both ironic and intellectually dishonest to label Chomsky here as the idealist.
Foucault was hostile towards biology, psychology, and human nature. He did not believe in "nature" as, say, Freud did. Chomsky believes in an innate nature and Foucault does not. Foucault should have been thrown out into the woods to fend for himself, then he would see how nature really works. Grizzly0679 is correct, Foucault sees things in black and white.
A wonderful debate. both represent thier sides well, the idealism of Chomsky vs.s the structuralist mapping of human social construct so as no to reconstitute older paradigms under new titles. I see Foucault as the 'winner of the debate (the full of which this is a portion) I find is to be thuroghly engaging
Chomsky is one of the greatest thinkers of our time. I honestly feel that the world owes him a debt of the deepest gratitude and respect for his untiring efforts on the behalf of the oppressed, the powerless, and those seeking an understanding of the power structures that so ruthlessly dominate our world. IMHO and experience, those who lash out at him have no factual basis to do so, it is just reactionary, knee jerk hatred of someone who raises inconvenient questions.
He may be the most important intellectual on the planet. I wonder if people were telling Newton to "shut up", It's amazing how much people fear dissident thought.
Newton was a religous mentalist loon who spent much of his time as a magistrate at Cambridge sentencing people to death for stealing apples, whilst he tried to work out biblical chronology back to 4006BC. And whingeing on that Leibnitz stole his ideas
This has been flagged as spam show
Can you get me lushfmlk.info
oralpussy 10 months ago
NICE video thank you very much...
power dat informs and des-informs
TurkJonu 2 years ago
Not every jew is sick but they all are carriers of mental illness. In 1900 there were 1,058,135 jews in the USA while in 1970 there were 5,868,555 which is an increase of 454.8%. In 1900 there were 62,112 persons confined in public mental hospitals in the USA while in 1970 there were 339,027 which is an increase of 445.7%. In the same period the USA population rose from 76,212,368 to 203,211,926, an increase of 166.6%. Prior to the influx of jews the USA was a mentally healthy nation. No more
SerpentSeedHasWon 3 years ago
if i had been in this show, i would have jumped up, pointet my finger towards foucault and shoutet as loud as i could: HAHA! YOU HAVE NO HAIR!
Thronsohn 3 years ago
And sparked a "postmodernist" debate about the nature of truth!
Carfer22 3 years ago
Debo de reirme de todas las tonterías que han escrito. Qué puedo decir, son gringos. Son dos posturas distintas, Foucault habla de un espacio social que existe, en cuanto al poder, mientras Chomsky, habla de planes de acción hacia algo que ya está ahí.
aisabel86 3 years ago
the difference is that foucault was a genius chomsky is a great philosopher but i think he is not a genius.He is as good as David Harvey for example but not as good as foucault.
jonas666666666 3 years ago
Foucauly had a much richer sensibility, which gave him a wider and deeper imagination. Chomsky thinks like an engineer. Foucault had looked into the abyss.
mrsmxyzptlk 3 years ago 2
Excellently put.
seahawk75 3 years ago
absolutely agreed with mbarupa
persagi 3 years ago
Chomsky talks about this notion of the 'fundamental need for creative work'. But humans have many fundamental needs, and choosing that particualr one seems rather arbitrary. We have sexual urges, could that not equally be a consideration when organising society? It is essentially a value judgement on his behalf. And this is obviously based on his own personal prejeudices. Though marx had a similar view. Maybe it is the academic mind which places value on creativity more than the laymen.
emphaticapathy 4 years ago
well of course you have sexual urges that need to be fulfilled, but i hope you will not spend your whole life on fulfilling them, what would you do in your spare time? should the job you take be imposed on you? if you wanted to study something, and you cannot because of your financial problems, what then? how does one relate to others in society? so far, it was only money and power that rule and dictate society?
those i think are the kinds of questions that chomsky has in mind.
WineofWisdom 3 years ago
cool debate but shit i didn't realise foucault looks like a hit man!
bodah44 4 years ago 2
Woah. That video was really interesting! I think I agree with Focault more than Mr Chomsky and it's ironic that he argues for anarcho-syndicalism when America lacks any semblance of it. Am doing a video reply but would like the transcript of the debate
Tiwaking 4 years ago
i wouldn't say that chomsky's endorsement of anarcho-syndicalism is ironic; chomsky is literally one of the most trenchant critics of american policy on the planet, so there's no contradiction.
redetrigan 4 years ago
Freedom and democracy '- Fighting wars biased in a human-nature thinking. Ich könnte kotzen!
TigerNF 4 years ago
way. When Foucault gets really critical of the state the camera draws back. He doesn't get anywhere near as much camera love as Chomsky. This is classic storytelling technique to tell you who the main character is and who you should listen to. Regardless of which one of these guys makes the better point, doesn't anyone else find that a bit dodge?
mbarupa 4 years ago
did anyone notice with what a bias this video is shot? It's leaning towards Chomsky in a major way. When he talks, the camera focuses on his face, does subtle little zooms in like he's saying something meaningful, and switches between him and the audience as if to say "Look. The people are listening." When Foucault is filmed there is often something in the
mbarupa 4 years ago
Comment removed
mussafari 5 years ago 2
Comment removed
mussafari 5 years ago
In comparison, Chomsky thinks that if we are technologically advanced enough, human nature is such that they can with their own hands, destroy all forms of power reproduction and create an "anarcho-syndicalismic reality." I don't think that that is possible.. at least in my opinion.
Hihoben 5 years ago
Apparently, personal liking is not the same thing as academic correctness. Foucault and Chomsky, as you can see in this video, does not disagree that "anarcho-syndicalism" is the most ideal social structure.
Hihoben 5 years ago
Foucault, is far too absolutist for my liking. His thoughts on psychiatry and justice systems, etc... are extremely black n' white. Chomsky noted that those very institutions DO contain elements of repression, but not entirely. Life in general is much more complex than Foucault makes it out to be. It's both ironic and intellectually dishonest to label Chomsky here as the idealist.
Grizzly0679 5 years ago
"Psychiatry is also a way to implement a political power to a particular social group. Justice also" 3:57
Can anyone possibly clarify what Foucault means? I think I have the right idea, however I don't want to misunderstand what he's saying. Thanks :)
Kyble 5 years ago
Foucault was hostile towards biology, psychology, and human nature. He did not believe in "nature" as, say, Freud did. Chomsky believes in an innate nature and Foucault does not. Foucault should have been thrown out into the woods to fend for himself, then he would see how nature really works. Grizzly0679 is correct, Foucault sees things in black and white.
Euripides27 5 years ago
A wonderful debate. both represent thier sides well, the idealism of Chomsky vs.s the structuralist mapping of human social construct so as no to reconstitute older paradigms under new titles. I see Foucault as the 'winner of the debate (the full of which this is a portion) I find is to be thuroghly engaging
CadaverSplatter 5 years ago
Foucault is on fire...Chomsky should just respect.
nclavi1 5 years ago
Chomsky is one of the greatest thinkers of our time. I honestly feel that the world owes him a debt of the deepest gratitude and respect for his untiring efforts on the behalf of the oppressed, the powerless, and those seeking an understanding of the power structures that so ruthlessly dominate our world. IMHO and experience, those who lash out at him have no factual basis to do so, it is just reactionary, knee jerk hatred of someone who raises inconvenient questions.
klondike111 5 years ago
Oh,i'm sorry,faggot.
jasonbigelow 5 years ago
He may be the most important intellectual on the planet. I wonder if people were telling Newton to "shut up", It's amazing how much people fear dissident thought.
fathead8489 5 years ago
Tis true!
szpakesque 5 years ago
Newton was a religous mentalist loon who spent much of his time as a magistrate at Cambridge sentencing people to death for stealing apples, whilst he tried to work out biblical chronology back to 4006BC. And whingeing on that Leibnitz stole his ideas
feline1973 5 years ago
then why don't you shut the FUCK up,bitch?
jasonbigelow 5 years ago
I second that motion!
feldbloo 5 years ago
Shut the FUCK UP Chomsky!!!!
jasonbigelow 5 years ago